The side-by-side comparison below may help in discussing both:
- whether to re-use core verbs or to define explicit verbs for
relationships.
- whether to represent each complex connection as a PSO.
Function Extended Verb Explicit Verb
------------------- ------------------ -------------
add beneath parent spmlcontain:add addChild
(re-)specify parent spmlcontain:move setParent
add with references spmlref:add addChild
add reference spml:modify-add/rep
connect(fr,to,ct[,cco])
remove reference spml:modify-del/rep disconnect(fr,to,ct)
modify reference info spml:modify(cco-id)
connect(fr,to,ct[,cco])
Gary
wrote:
>1) Should relationship operations re-use/extend core verbs?
>
> Jeff Bohren has proposed the following:
>
> - spmlcontain:add (since add may require containment).
>
> - spmlref:add (desirable to minimize SPML calls).
>
> - use spml:modify to add/replace/remove connections.
>
> - use spml:modify to update complex connection info.
>
> - use search to query by reference relationship.
>
>
>
> pro: keeps protocol simple (adds fewer verbs).
>
> con: makes protocol confusing (overloading; bad pattern).
>
> pro: containment sometimes required as part of create.
>
> pro: references desirable as part of create (fewer calls).
>
>
>
>
>
>2) Represent each complex connection as a PSO?
>
> pro: keeps protocol simple (adds fewer verbs).
>
> con: scalability burden on provider (ID namespace).
>
> con: scales worse than native resource (e.g., RACF).
>
> rebuttal: complex connections are rare.
>
> Since most connection types are simple,
>
> benefit of simplicity outweighs burden of scale.
>
